Would this be a redundant choice?

Hey all,

I've been thinking over my next photographic purchase quite a bit. Originally my plan was to pick up a telephoto to fill the missing link in my long end. I recently just sold a 70-300 as I rarely used it. My reason for wanting a telephoto was for general shooting and for possibly getting into more event/photojournalism stuff. No guarantees I'll be doing that, but it's a nice idea. I'm hesitant to do this since I didn't shoot long much before, and I don't want to waste any money on a lens that will collect dust. On the other hand it gives me reach and the option to shoot things outside of my norm.

I'm mainly into shooting land/sea scapes, city scenes, and macro / still-life / abstracts. While I love my 17-40 I've always entertained the notion of picking up an ultra-wide like the 10-22 or 10-20 for the distorted effects and really w-i-d-e landscape stuff. I've noticed most people who have an UWA use a mid-range 24/28+ mm zoom to compliment it but I've seen some full framers with the 17-40 as their UWA and a zoom that starts at 24mm.

So, would it be redudant to carry both a 10-22 and a 17-40? My range would still be quite limited and I'm afraid I wouldn't use both (have no desire to get rid of my 17-40!). Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Brad.

I don't think it is redundant at all. The first lens I had and the one I still use the most is my 17-85. There were lots of times it was not quite wide enough so I got the 10-22 and while I don't use it lots, the times I do make it priceless. On a crop camera I would not like a 24-XXX as my main lens because, even with the 10-22, I would be changing lenses way to often. With a full frame I believe that either the 17-40 or 16-35 combined with on of the 24-XXX lenses would be a simalar great combo.

The 10-22 is more of a specialty lens, landscapes only pretty much.

The 17-40 can be a landscape lens, and also double as a general walkaround lens.

If you shoot a lot of landscapes, then the 10-22 is awesome. Otherwise, you will be swapping lenses A LOT.

I do shoot alot of landscapes, currently my 17-40 pulls duty 95% of the time.

I can see having an UWA w/ the 17-85 as that lens offers alot more reach than the 17-40 does BearLeeAlive. I suppose the 17-40 would still be my main lens and I could bust out the UWA for special effects or just landscapes that I need wider than 17mm....

hhhmmm... decisions decisions.

The 10-22 is a whole new ball game compaired to the 17-40 in terms of wide. Those few extra mm make a huge difference. I think the 10-22 is often too wide for landscapes. The thing I really like about it is the perspectives that are possible with it. That's what makes it fun. You really need to stick it on the camera as often as possible because it's difficult to tell when that wide perspective will work and when it won't. So, if there's a few extra minutes, pop it on there and have a look through the view finder.

I carry a 10-22 and a 17-55/2.8 for my general landscape/general purpose shooting. The 10-22 can give you some really striking pictures when you learn to compose effectively with a super wide angle. You have to watch composition because there is a temptation with a super wide to just try to get everything in and you just end up with a clutter of small objects in the photo. You need to ensure you have strong foreground, middle ground and back ground elements to make an effective super wide photo.

The 17-55 works well with the 10-22 since it is wide enough for a lot of landscapes and long enough for portraits. I seldom use the 17-40 since I got the 17-55.

ScottE wrote in post #2114168
You have to watch composition because there is a temptation with a super wide to just try to get everything in and you just end up with a clutter of small objects in the photo. You need to ensure you have strong foreground, middle ground and back ground elements to make an effective super wide photo.

That's what I was trying to say but you did a much better job of explaining it.

Thanks Adam & Scott, more to think about now, I keep trying to convince myself that if I had the UWA and 17-40 only one would get use, maybe I'm wrong.

For REALLY wide, slap on your 50mm and take half a dozen shots... Then merge them together.

I've used the 10-22mm, and it's definately on my list of things I want. Excellent. Personally, I would be lost without my 70-200mm f4 L though. It's all a matter of what's more important to you. I don't think that only one of your lenses would get use if you got the UWA. I'm sure you would quickly find that 22mm is still WAY WIDE, and you would want something with some reach. Maybe you could find something good in the 24-100mm range to relpace the 17-40 with.

Dorman wrote in post #2123165
Thanks Adam & Scott, more to think about now, I keep trying to convince myself that if I had the UWA and 17-40 only one would get use, maybe I'm wrong.

My 17-40L gets about 30% of the camera time, while my 10-20 gets about 20%. My 28-105 is somewhere in between. I'm thinking about giving up my 28-105 for the new Sigma 50-150, but I have no plans whatsoever to give up the other two lenses. They give me my best landscape and waterfall images. Plus they can share my polarizer and neutral density filters.